PRO bears the entirety of the burden of proof, and must demonstrate that Ford is objectively superior to Chevy. Since this is often a matter of subjective opinion, he must in the process both (a) evidence the individual points he's making and (b) establish a framework by which to establish objectivity superiority. If he fails to do that, you default to a CON ballot.

This means that PRO must prove:

Ford > Chevy

If, by the end of the debate, the following two options are still on the table --

Chevy = Ford Chevy < Ford

-- or there's considerable uncertainty, you default to CON.

Now, read PRO's opening remark: he says Ford is "better quality."

This, my friends, is circular: he's presuming the resolution via merely restating it. He needs to explain *why* this is the case.

He thing brings up two features: there's no comparison, there's no elucidation of these features, there's no objective criterion. These points do literally nothing to advance his BOP.